G.B. v. Crossroads Academy-Central St.

• Decision Date: 08 December 2020
• Docket Number: WD 83756
• Citation: 618 S.W.3d 581
• Parties: G.B., J.B., and W.B., et al., Appellants, v. CROSSROADS ACADEMY-CENTRAL STREET, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

618 S.W.3d 581

G.B., J.B., and W.B., et al., Appellants,

v.CROSSROADS ACADEMY-CENTRAL STREET, Respondent.

WD 83756

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: December 8, 2020

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 2, 2021

Application for Transfer Denied April 6, 2021

Linus L. Baker, Stilwell, KS, for appellants.

Stephanie Lovett-Bowman and Angus W. Dwyer, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Three: Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

Gary D. Witt, Judge

G.B., J.B., W.B., Zach Baker, and Audrey Baker(collectively "the Bakers") appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County dismissing with prejudice the Bakers' petition requesting a trial de novo or other administrative review regarding the Crossroads Academy-Central Street's ("Crossroads") decision not to allow the Bakers' children to attend Crossroads until they were vaccinated or filed with the school a proper religious objection to the children being vaccinated arguing this decision was "ultra vires, unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise involve[d] an abuse of discretion."We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background¹

G.B., J.B., and W.B. (collectively "the Baker children") were enrolled at Crossroads, a charter school in Kansas City.G.B. enrolled in the fall of 2017, J.B. enrolled in the fall of 2018, and W.B. enrolled in the fall of 2019.The Baker children are not vaccinated because of religious beliefs.Approximately one month after the 2019 school year began, the school nurse informed the Bakers that W.B. could no longer attend school because he was unvaccinated without a proper exemption as required by section 167.181.²On August 19, 2019, Audrey Baker signed a handwritten note, which provided:

PURSUANT TO MISSOURI STATUTE 167.181, I AM MAKING A RELIGIOUS OBJECTION TO VACCINATIONS ON BEHALF OF MY CHILD & AM GIVING IT TO THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR.I AM WILLING TO FILL OUT A FORM IF THE SCHOOL PROVIDES IT TO ME WHICH THEY WILL NOT DO.

Subsequently, on August 29, 2019, Crossroads notified all parents of unvaccinated children claiming a religious exemption that religious exemptions must be provided on an original Department of Health and Senior Services' form Imm.P.11A("Form 11"), citing19 CSR 20-28.010(1)(C)(2).³The letter provided in pertinent part:

In the past, when students were enrolled, the school did not require parents to provide the original Department form for the school to keep on file and accepted copies of the form instead.However, in order to be compliant with the Department, we are now going back over our records and requiring that all students who are religiously exempt provide the original forms.

Subsequently, on December 5, 2019, the Bakers received a letter from Crossroads providing in part:

As you are likely aware, the court recently entered an order that will terminate the stipulated temporary restraining order on December 16.As of that date, Crossroads is thus reinstating the requirement that families who assert a religious objection to vaccinating their children, including yours, must submit a signed, original [Form 11].

To ensure you have adequate time to submit the [Form 11], Crossroads will allow you a grace period until January 7, 2020—the first day back from school after winter break—to provide a signed, original [Form 11] for [W.B., G.B., and J.B.].If you do not provide a signed, original [Form 11] for each of your children by the beginning of school on January 7, those children without an original form on file will not be allowed to attend.

The Bakers requested an appeal of Crossroads' administration's decision to Crossroads' Board of Directors("Board") and demanded that the administration's decision be stayed pursuant to section 167.171 until the Board rendered a final decision.The Bakers received a response from Crossroads in an unsigned e-mail, which denied that the Baker children were being suspended or expelled but provided the Bakers the opportunity to attend a closed session meeting of the Board on December 16, 2019, and address the Board "to ‘share factual information’ that ‘supports why Crossroads should proceed differently in this matter.’ "

On December 16, 2019, the Bakers availed themselves of the opportunity to be heard, and the Board met in closed session, which the Bakers attended with counsel.The Bakers were allowed to argue their position but were not allowed to call witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, or present evidence.The session was not recorded, and no transcript was taken.On December 23, 2019, the Board sent a letter to the Bakers providing in part:

[The Board] has voted to uphold the administration's decision that for your children to maintain eligibility to attend school you must comply with the requirements of 10 CSR 20-28.010 [sic] and submit either proof of vaccination or a signed original [Form 11] for each child by January 7, 2020 or be disenrolled from school.

The Bakers have refused to file an original Form 11 with the school for the children, and the Baker children have not been allowed to return to Crossroads.

On December 29, 2019, the Bakers filed, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County("circuit court"), a Petition for Review for Stay of Expulsion of Children and DHSS Regulation ("Petition") solely against Crossroads, seeking a trial de novo pursuant to section 167.161 alleging that Crossroads did not comply with its own policies when it suspended or expelled the Baker children.⁴The Petition's prayer for relief requested in its entirety:

WHERFORE [sic]the petitioner / appellants request that the Court determine that the removal of the Baker children's rights to attend school is ultra vires, unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise involves an abuse of discretion, and further request all relief available under the review statute including the issuance of an order of stay, temporary restraining order, or injunction pursuant to 536.120 such that the Baker children will be permitted to attend Crossroads school under the religious exemption statements already provided to the school by the parents allowing those children to attend school without being vaccine injected.

On January 7, 2020, the Bakers filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order seeking an injunction ordering Crossroads to allow the Baker children to attend school unvaccinated.The circuit court denied the motion on February 13, 2020.

On February 6, 2020, Crossroads filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging the Petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.After substantial briefing by both parties, the circuit court entered its judgment on April 27, 2020, dismissing the Petition with prejudice holding that:

The right to a review of a school's decision under [section] 167.161 attaches only in the context of a dispute over a Missouri school's disciplinary suspension or expulsion of a student.The decision to continue the enrollment of the Petitioner's children does not involve a disciplinary removal—it relates to eligibility to be enrolled in the school.There are no allegations that the Petitioners' children were suspended or expelled for a disciplinary reason.Petitioners thus have no right to seek a trial de novo reviewing Crossroads' enrollment decision, and their petition should be dismissed in its entirety.

This appeal timely followed.

Ancillary Litigation

In addition to the judgment of the circuit court, which is before us on appeal, the Bakers filed three additional lawsuits before the Petition was filed in the instant case.First, the Bakers filed a petition (" Baker I ") in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri("District Court") naming Crossroads, the Missouri Attorney General, and the Director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services as defendants.The Baker I petition raised both federal and state claims that the vaccination regulations are unconstitutional and sought a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction ordering the Baker children to be re-enrolled at Crossroads.The District Court denied both the preliminary and permanent injunctions.W.B. by and through Baker v. Crossroads Acad.-Cent. St. , No. 4:19-cv-00682-HFS, 2019 WL 6257963(W.D. Mo.Nov. 22, 2019).The District Court subsequently dismissed the claims pertaining to the StateDefendants.W.B. by and through Baker v. Crossroads Acad.-Cent. St. , No. 4:19-CV-00682-HFS, 2020 WL 206718(W.D. Mo.Jan. 10, 2020).

Second, the Bakers filed another petition (" Baker II ") in the Federal District Court that originally entered a temporary restraining order preventing Crossroads from disenrolling the Baker children, but the District Court subsequently dismissed the federal claims against Crossroads and lifted its previous restraining order.G.B. by and through Baker v. Crossroads Acad.-Cent. St. , No. 20-00003-CV-W-HFS, 2020 WL 996455(W.D. Mo.March 2, 2020).⁵

Additionally, on December 29, 2019, the Bakers filed a 100-page petition in the circuit court("Baker III ") raising 18 claims against the named defendant in this matter as well as: Karis Parker, Crossroads' Principal; Eva Copeland, Crossroads' School Nurse; the Director of the City of Kansas City, Missouri, Health Department; the Director of the Jackson County, Missouri, Health Department; the Director for the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services; and the Missouri Attorney General.G.B., J.B, and W.B. v. Crossroads Acad. , No. 1916-CV-34300.Relevant to this appeal, the Bakers alleged in Count I of that petition that 19 CSR 20-28.010 is ultra vires and improperly modifies and expands the scope of its enabling statute; in Count III that Copeland, Parker, and Crossroads violated Crossroads' policies and the Missouri statutes governing expulsion and suspension of students; in Count XIX, seeking a declaratory judgment, that ...